I am going to offer my view of some of the texts that often come into play in Left Behind Theology. Here's my warning: I'm just going to throw my views out here, without the usual burden of copious annotations and arguments. It's not that I disrespect scholarly writings- on the contrary, I'm a geek in every respect of the term- but sometimes scholarly texts become so specific and attentive to such minutiae that they end up being members of the guild speaking only to one another. That's great for members of the guild, but it leaves the other 99.9% of humanity out of the picture, doesn't it? So, here are my general views when it comes to that curious book of Daniel.
Daniel is a hybrid book of many sorts. The first six chapters are the types of narratives that seem more fitting to belong in the first section of the Hebrew Bible, which I call the 'cultic history' section- that is, the history of the people of Israel as a minority religious groups in the ancient near east. When I teach Confirmation, I ask the students to brainstorm all of the great stories that they can remember concerning the People of Israel. They do a great job and all of the stories they name come from the books of Genesis - Esther, except for 3: Jonah and the 'Whale'; Daniel and the Lion's Den; and the three Hebrew boys and the fiery furnace. Leaving Jonah aside for now, their insight is that the stories in the first half of Daniel (chapters 1-6) seem much more like "David and Goliath" types narratives than the usual stuff one finds in the books of the Prophets (Isaiah - Malachi). (Here's a shout out to all the Confirmands I've had over the last 12 years! Woohoo!)
Yes, the first half of Daniel seems more like story-telling than prophetic pronouncements.
But, then there's the second half of Daniel (chapters 7-12), which must be prophetic because it is so weird. "Weird" in this instance is not a pejorative term; it simply means that if you try to map these chapters out literally, you become someone psychotic. Okay, maybe that is pejorative, but the point is this: there is an enormous amount of symbolism in Daniel, chapters 7-12, some of which is explained with literal referents; some of which is explained with more symbolism, some of which is left unexplained, assuming that the reader knows good and well what the symbols are all about.
My guess is that most people who read the second half of Daniel- if they get through it- end up saying something like, "What the...?"
Frankly, I think that's a better, more genuine, and more intellectually honest response than those who act as though they understand perfectly what these chapters are saying, but more on that later.
So, here's my take on Daniel generally: (Biblical literalists, please prepare your prayer closets for some serious intervention for my soul.) I'll start with the person of Daniel.
Once upon a time there was a man named Daniel who did something tremendously heroic. It was an awful time of chaos and despair for the people of Israel, because their nation had been routed in warfare by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon; their mighty warriors were defeated; their 'best and brightest' were exiled into slavery; and others were left to clean up the mess as a vassal state to the Nebuchadnezzar's empire. Worst of all- absolutely worst- was the notion that God had failed to protect them. It was their assumption that the covenant they had with God would keep them protected, even when they pushed God to the limits by being unfaithful themselves. But, now, that assumption seemed wrong and they were left with questions like, "Has God forsaken the covenant?" "Is God punishing us?" "How are we to live faithfully under these circumstances?" Hard questions, all.
The story about Daniel, in my view, goes a little beyond the actual person of Daniel. It is the story of a man who demonstrated faithfulness in times of trouble. He maintained his piety, even when it seemed that the gods and the king-worship of Babylon were more reliable than his practice of praying to YHWH. Still, he maintained his faith and, in the end, God rescued him in times of trouble. It is a VERY inspiring story of faith.
As a story, it makes little difference whether the literal Daniel of history did, thought, and said exactly what the Daniel of the story does, thinks, and says. It is a story of faith that- my opinion- is probably grounded in a real-life hero, was probably told orally for centuries, probably grew with the telling and re-telling of the story, and probably made the 'story Daniel' a little larger than the 'historical Daniel.' Of course I don't KNOW whether this is true, but that's what tends to happen with moral stories about real people. Just think of stories about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln- real people whose real virtues are told through stories that are probably not entirely factual. It's okay! The stories are true, even if they are not entirely factual.
A couple of other stories seem to interface with the Daniel in the Lion's Den story. Daniel seems to be a lot like Joseph: Both were dream interpreters, both ended up in the service of the leader of the empire (Egypt, Babylon), and both were models of faithfulness in trying times. The words in the Joseph story, "What you intended for evil, God intended for good" speak powerfully to those who are in a terrible situation and look for hope by pointing to a larger story behind the pain of our momentary story and insisting that God is still in control, working all things out for our good. The story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (the famed Rack, Shack, and Bennie of Veggie Tales) in the fiery furnace is also very much like the Daniel story, isn't it? Same plot, basically.
What I'm suggesting is that the story of Daniel (and all of chapters 1-6 in Daniel) is a moral tale, which might have happened factually, but its relevance lies beyond its factuality.
Now, if you haven't consigned me to the pits of the netherworld yet, tune in tomorrow for a bit more.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Homotextuality v. Intertextuality
I've written before about what I call 'homotextuality,' that approach to the Bible that virtually ignores the uniqueness of each of the biblical books and treats the Scriptures as if all of them are saying the same thing. That approach ignores the historical context of each book, preferring to act as though time and situation are irrelevant to understanding the meaning of the text. That is a difficult approach to accept for a collection of text that were written (after centuries of an oral tradition) over a thousand year span. And yet, that is precisely the kind of biblical interpretation that Left Behind Theology requires. So, the probability that Daniel was written during a national crisis, and that Mark was written during the destruction of Jerusalem become meaningless, because homotextuality insists that neither of them is addressing the disaster at hand; they are both talking about a foreboding event of the future, which we now know was at least 2,000 away.
There is a better way of understanding the Scriptures, which does not have to sacrifice the historical context or uniqueness of each of the biblical texts, but still allows that they are connected in some key and intentional ways. Rather than homotexuality, I suggest that we follow a process of intertextuality, for understanding the uniqueness and interrelations of biblical texts.
To understand what I mean by intertextuality, let's look at the use of 'bread' in the Scriptures. Obviously bread is a staple of the diet of the communities throughout the Bible, from Abraham's and Sarah's hospitality tent to Paul and his house churches. It would not be unusual, then, for 'bread' to mean both the specific grain-based food that one eats with meals as well as a term that refers generally to eating a meal, such as "breaking bread together." So, here's a thumbnail sketch of how 'bread' shows up through the Scriptures:
Bread is a sign of hospitality for Abraham and Sarah when they have guests; Grain is the thing that Joseph stores up for Pharaoh over seven years of plenty, which he sells and makes Pharaoh extremely wealthy during the seven years of famine; grain is what drives Joseph's brothers to Egypt, eventually settling the Israelites there (move ahead 400 years); the Israelites make unleavened bread to prepare for their hurried journey out of Egypt- the unleavened bread of Passover now is a symbol of their hurried departure; the Israelites begin to starve in their wanderings and God provides 'manna', which is called "bread from heaven"; the laws in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy make consistent reference to grain/bread (along with grapes/wine and oil) as a sign of God's blessing when they reach the Promised Land; the laws also make consistent reference to the People of Israel's need to provide grain/bread to the widows, orphans, and aliens (non-land owners) among them, remembering that they once were a people who were enslaved and God remembered them; the Psalms make reference to the "bread from heaven" as a test of faithfulness and to bread more generally as a sign of God's abundance; the prophets make reference to bread/harvesting grain and the lack of bread/harvesting grain as signs of God blessing or punishment; the gospels have numerous references to bread, but all of them tell the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000 (and the 4,000) using language that seems intentionally to refer to the story of manna; John tells of Jesus calling himself the bread of life; Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul tell the story of the Last Supper; and so on.
Phew! That was a sprint through many years, simply noting some of the highlights of how 'bread' is used throughout the scriptures as both a literal and a symbolic reference. It is no wonder that, when Jesus sat down to that last supper with his disciples, he was able to take literal bread and say something non-literal (this is my body) about it. They were all well-steeped in a tradition that saw bread as bread and as more than bread at the same time.
Intertextuality is a way of reading the Scriptures where a reference to bread in a later text might carry references to bread in an earlier text (leaving open the possibility that sometimes "a loaf of bread is just a loaf of bread"). So, for example, when Amos decries the corrupt people who want the Sabbath to be over so they can buy and sell and exploit again, he also accuses them of "selling the sweepings of the wheat." That doesn't sound so bad, until you remember the laws in Leviticus where the fallen wheat was not to be swept up for sale, but left for the poor. As long as people left the fallen wheat for the poor, they were remembering that once they were landless slaves and God provided for them. When they are selling the sweepings of the wheat, they are forgetting the liberation from Egypt, the manna in the wilderness, and God's provision for them. The later reference in Amos depends on the earlier reference in Leviticus for the full impact of its meaning.
Homotextuality works almost in the opposite direction. I have a study Bible where the writer comments on the 'manna' story as an anticipation of Jesus, saying "Christ is the fulfillment of this type." So, what looks like bread for a starving people, a sign of God's abundant provision beyond their own ability to provide for themselves- is actually a prophetic reference to Jesus. I think this process of homotextuality is simply wrong.
Intertextuality reads the Gospels as reaching back and taking the bread references of earlier texts and giving them new meaning. And that is where we'll pick it up tomorrow as we look at some key texts in Left Behind Theology.
There is a better way of understanding the Scriptures, which does not have to sacrifice the historical context or uniqueness of each of the biblical texts, but still allows that they are connected in some key and intentional ways. Rather than homotexuality, I suggest that we follow a process of intertextuality, for understanding the uniqueness and interrelations of biblical texts.
To understand what I mean by intertextuality, let's look at the use of 'bread' in the Scriptures. Obviously bread is a staple of the diet of the communities throughout the Bible, from Abraham's and Sarah's hospitality tent to Paul and his house churches. It would not be unusual, then, for 'bread' to mean both the specific grain-based food that one eats with meals as well as a term that refers generally to eating a meal, such as "breaking bread together." So, here's a thumbnail sketch of how 'bread' shows up through the Scriptures:
Bread is a sign of hospitality for Abraham and Sarah when they have guests; Grain is the thing that Joseph stores up for Pharaoh over seven years of plenty, which he sells and makes Pharaoh extremely wealthy during the seven years of famine; grain is what drives Joseph's brothers to Egypt, eventually settling the Israelites there (move ahead 400 years); the Israelites make unleavened bread to prepare for their hurried journey out of Egypt- the unleavened bread of Passover now is a symbol of their hurried departure; the Israelites begin to starve in their wanderings and God provides 'manna', which is called "bread from heaven"; the laws in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy make consistent reference to grain/bread (along with grapes/wine and oil) as a sign of God's blessing when they reach the Promised Land; the laws also make consistent reference to the People of Israel's need to provide grain/bread to the widows, orphans, and aliens (non-land owners) among them, remembering that they once were a people who were enslaved and God remembered them; the Psalms make reference to the "bread from heaven" as a test of faithfulness and to bread more generally as a sign of God's abundance; the prophets make reference to bread/harvesting grain and the lack of bread/harvesting grain as signs of God blessing or punishment; the gospels have numerous references to bread, but all of them tell the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000 (and the 4,000) using language that seems intentionally to refer to the story of manna; John tells of Jesus calling himself the bread of life; Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul tell the story of the Last Supper; and so on.
Phew! That was a sprint through many years, simply noting some of the highlights of how 'bread' is used throughout the scriptures as both a literal and a symbolic reference. It is no wonder that, when Jesus sat down to that last supper with his disciples, he was able to take literal bread and say something non-literal (this is my body) about it. They were all well-steeped in a tradition that saw bread as bread and as more than bread at the same time.
Intertextuality is a way of reading the Scriptures where a reference to bread in a later text might carry references to bread in an earlier text (leaving open the possibility that sometimes "a loaf of bread is just a loaf of bread"). So, for example, when Amos decries the corrupt people who want the Sabbath to be over so they can buy and sell and exploit again, he also accuses them of "selling the sweepings of the wheat." That doesn't sound so bad, until you remember the laws in Leviticus where the fallen wheat was not to be swept up for sale, but left for the poor. As long as people left the fallen wheat for the poor, they were remembering that once they were landless slaves and God provided for them. When they are selling the sweepings of the wheat, they are forgetting the liberation from Egypt, the manna in the wilderness, and God's provision for them. The later reference in Amos depends on the earlier reference in Leviticus for the full impact of its meaning.
Homotextuality works almost in the opposite direction. I have a study Bible where the writer comments on the 'manna' story as an anticipation of Jesus, saying "Christ is the fulfillment of this type." So, what looks like bread for a starving people, a sign of God's abundant provision beyond their own ability to provide for themselves- is actually a prophetic reference to Jesus. I think this process of homotextuality is simply wrong.
Intertextuality reads the Gospels as reaching back and taking the bread references of earlier texts and giving them new meaning. And that is where we'll pick it up tomorrow as we look at some key texts in Left Behind Theology.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Mail Call
Dear Dr. Endall,
I am at my wit's end! I know that the rapture is the most important doctrine in the Bible and that everything we do has to be done, every single day must be lived, and every single decision must be made knowing that any second the rapture could happen and only those who are watching and ready will go in it. I know that is true because I have read every book on the subject and I know that God would never want one of his truly loved ones to go through the kind of terrible ordeals that are going to take place during the latter half of the seven years of Tribulation. I know this is true. And, I listen to your radio show faithfully every day to understand exactly where we are on God's great end-time calendar.
But, I just cannot seem to find the definitive proof of the rapture in my Bible! My friends- especially those nominal Christian friends of mine- keep challenging me to show them where the doctrine is clearly given, but I cannot even find the word 'rapture' in there. I've consulted all of my study Bibles, even Strong's exhaustive concordance, and especially my grandmother's Scoffield Reference Bible, but I can't find the word 'rapture'! I don't want any more explanations and complicated charts. I just want to be able to point to the word and show my friends that they, too, must be ready! Can you please help me?
- Need it in Black and White
Dear NiBaW,
Thank you for your letter and your faithfulness amongst this evil and doomed generation. And thank you for your contributions to our radio program. My wife Ladeen and I remember you kindly in our prayers each and every day.
Now, concerning your question of the word 'rapture,' I am going to "shew you a mystery" that even the most respected scholars of our day cannot even begin to fathom. You are absolutely correct to say that the rapture is THE most important doctrine in the entire Bible. But, you are also correct to say that you cannot find it in your Bible, or in any Bible known to man. Now, why is that?
Do not be led astray by those doubters and skeptics who say that the word is not in the Bible because it is not a biblical word! As we have already shown, it is the most important doctrine "in the Bible." Just look around you and you will see that it is only the truly "Bible believing" churches in our world who uphold this teaching that came straight from the mouth of Jesus. But, here is the reason you cannot find it:
The word 'rapture' has been raptured.
Just think about it. We KNOW that it was there- probably in many, many places throught the Old and New Testaments- but, suddenly, it is no longer there! It is as if two men were working in the field when, suddenly, one is taken and the other left! It is proof amazing that, of all the words in the Bible, this is the only one that is now gone. That is what some scholars call a 'self-instantiating' word. The word rapture, in order to demonstrate beyond any doubt that it is true, has been taken away from us- gone without a trace, just like you and I will be if we hold firmly to this word, even when it is not there.
Now, this is a deep teaching and many of your friends will scoff at it. But, do not be dismayed or led astray by them, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness to those of us who understand these great mysteries.
Thank you again for your letter. Please find the enclosed, addressed envelope for your contribution as we continue to spread the word to our lost and forsaken world.
Yours Truly,
Dr. Endall
I am at my wit's end! I know that the rapture is the most important doctrine in the Bible and that everything we do has to be done, every single day must be lived, and every single decision must be made knowing that any second the rapture could happen and only those who are watching and ready will go in it. I know that is true because I have read every book on the subject and I know that God would never want one of his truly loved ones to go through the kind of terrible ordeals that are going to take place during the latter half of the seven years of Tribulation. I know this is true. And, I listen to your radio show faithfully every day to understand exactly where we are on God's great end-time calendar.
But, I just cannot seem to find the definitive proof of the rapture in my Bible! My friends- especially those nominal Christian friends of mine- keep challenging me to show them where the doctrine is clearly given, but I cannot even find the word 'rapture' in there. I've consulted all of my study Bibles, even Strong's exhaustive concordance, and especially my grandmother's Scoffield Reference Bible, but I can't find the word 'rapture'! I don't want any more explanations and complicated charts. I just want to be able to point to the word and show my friends that they, too, must be ready! Can you please help me?
- Need it in Black and White
Dear NiBaW,
Thank you for your letter and your faithfulness amongst this evil and doomed generation. And thank you for your contributions to our radio program. My wife Ladeen and I remember you kindly in our prayers each and every day.
Now, concerning your question of the word 'rapture,' I am going to "shew you a mystery" that even the most respected scholars of our day cannot even begin to fathom. You are absolutely correct to say that the rapture is THE most important doctrine in the entire Bible. But, you are also correct to say that you cannot find it in your Bible, or in any Bible known to man. Now, why is that?
Do not be led astray by those doubters and skeptics who say that the word is not in the Bible because it is not a biblical word! As we have already shown, it is the most important doctrine "in the Bible." Just look around you and you will see that it is only the truly "Bible believing" churches in our world who uphold this teaching that came straight from the mouth of Jesus. But, here is the reason you cannot find it:
The word 'rapture' has been raptured.
Just think about it. We KNOW that it was there- probably in many, many places throught the Old and New Testaments- but, suddenly, it is no longer there! It is as if two men were working in the field when, suddenly, one is taken and the other left! It is proof amazing that, of all the words in the Bible, this is the only one that is now gone. That is what some scholars call a 'self-instantiating' word. The word rapture, in order to demonstrate beyond any doubt that it is true, has been taken away from us- gone without a trace, just like you and I will be if we hold firmly to this word, even when it is not there.
Now, this is a deep teaching and many of your friends will scoff at it. But, do not be dismayed or led astray by them, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness to those of us who understand these great mysteries.
Thank you again for your letter. Please find the enclosed, addressed envelope for your contribution as we continue to spread the word to our lost and forsaken world.
Yours Truly,
Dr. Endall
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Artificial Intimidation and the Real Thing
I read a blog recently that attributed to M. Gandhi the following:
Let the first act of every morning be to make the following resolve for the day:I shall not fear anyone on Earth. I shall fear only God. I shall not bear ill will toward anyone. I shall not submit to injustice from anyone. I shall conquer untruth by truth. And in resisting untruth, I shall put up with all suffering.
What I found interesting, beyond the sheer sagacity of Gandhi’s words, were many responses to these resolutions. Most of them were positive, of course, given Gandhi’s standing among many people of good will. But, some of them were critical of the use of the word 'fear.' They liked the first resolution, not to fear anyone on earth. But, they balked at the second one, mostly with the argument that God is to be loved and not to be feared.
Fear. It appears in two significantly different ways in Scripture: “Fear not,” that oft-repeated phrase; and “Fear God,” also often repeated. Wow. Put those beside one another and the question arises: To fear or not to fear?
It certainly seems like there are two different referents to the word ‘fear.’ In the first case, there is an invitation not to be afraid, but to feel welcomed into the presence of the holy. You remember the phrase “Fear not!” from many Christmas pageants, I’ll bet. That’s because the ancient folk saw angels as more like Ninjas than Fairies. Think about it: they sneak up at night, totally unseen until the just suddenly appear. And, they are just as likely to kill you as to aid you. The word “host” as in “heavenly host” typically is a military reference to a battalion of soldiers. So, some poor schmuck of a shepherd, abiding in a field, suddenly gets accosted by this sneaky, warrior-like creature from the outer-world … well, there’s going to be some serious pant-wetting going on. So, the first word that Ninja/Angel says is “Fear not.” And the shepherd says, “Phew! It’s a good visit, not a bad one. All I have to do now is run home and change, then I can go and see this child that has been born.”
The sense of the word “fear” in the multiple cases of “fear not” seems to be a way of assuring people that God is listening, caring, and responding to their deepest times of need and anxiety. Their fear- while understandable- is inordinate, because God is their sure companion and help.
In the second case, with the phrase “Fear God” in both the Scriptures and in Gandhi’s morning discipline, the word “fear” seems to refer to a proper feeling of utter humility, awe, and wonder at being in the presence of One who is higher than our imaginations can soar, more beautiful than our hearts can bear, beyond good. I know the song is sung to death, and I don’t particularly like the melody, but these words really capture what I think that word ‘fear’ is all about in this second reference:
Oh Lord, my God, when I in awesome wonder
consider all the worlds thy hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
thy powers throughout the universe displayed.
Now, that’s someone who has gotten a glimpse of sheer glory. And it puts everything else into perspective. Gandhi understood, for example, that when one has this kind of awe and feeling of humility before God, then fear of some human- even some powerful despotic leader who thinks he is God- is abated. One can say, “No, you are not God, you are not power, you are not majesty. You are, perhaps, more powerful than I, but God is all in all.” It is utterly essential for Gandhi’s fear of God to be the ground on which he can say ‘I shall not fear anyone on Earth.’
The deception of Left Behind Theology is that God will somehow abandon the earth, making pseudo-gods and blaspheming powers truly scary. But, as long as God is God, that is a deception that warrants this response: “Fear not!”
Let the first act of every morning be to make the following resolve for the day:I shall not fear anyone on Earth. I shall fear only God. I shall not bear ill will toward anyone. I shall not submit to injustice from anyone. I shall conquer untruth by truth. And in resisting untruth, I shall put up with all suffering.
What I found interesting, beyond the sheer sagacity of Gandhi’s words, were many responses to these resolutions. Most of them were positive, of course, given Gandhi’s standing among many people of good will. But, some of them were critical of the use of the word 'fear.' They liked the first resolution, not to fear anyone on earth. But, they balked at the second one, mostly with the argument that God is to be loved and not to be feared.
Fear. It appears in two significantly different ways in Scripture: “Fear not,” that oft-repeated phrase; and “Fear God,” also often repeated. Wow. Put those beside one another and the question arises: To fear or not to fear?
It certainly seems like there are two different referents to the word ‘fear.’ In the first case, there is an invitation not to be afraid, but to feel welcomed into the presence of the holy. You remember the phrase “Fear not!” from many Christmas pageants, I’ll bet. That’s because the ancient folk saw angels as more like Ninjas than Fairies. Think about it: they sneak up at night, totally unseen until the just suddenly appear. And, they are just as likely to kill you as to aid you. The word “host” as in “heavenly host” typically is a military reference to a battalion of soldiers. So, some poor schmuck of a shepherd, abiding in a field, suddenly gets accosted by this sneaky, warrior-like creature from the outer-world … well, there’s going to be some serious pant-wetting going on. So, the first word that Ninja/Angel says is “Fear not.” And the shepherd says, “Phew! It’s a good visit, not a bad one. All I have to do now is run home and change, then I can go and see this child that has been born.”
The sense of the word “fear” in the multiple cases of “fear not” seems to be a way of assuring people that God is listening, caring, and responding to their deepest times of need and anxiety. Their fear- while understandable- is inordinate, because God is their sure companion and help.
In the second case, with the phrase “Fear God” in both the Scriptures and in Gandhi’s morning discipline, the word “fear” seems to refer to a proper feeling of utter humility, awe, and wonder at being in the presence of One who is higher than our imaginations can soar, more beautiful than our hearts can bear, beyond good. I know the song is sung to death, and I don’t particularly like the melody, but these words really capture what I think that word ‘fear’ is all about in this second reference:
Oh Lord, my God, when I in awesome wonder
consider all the worlds thy hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
thy powers throughout the universe displayed.
Now, that’s someone who has gotten a glimpse of sheer glory. And it puts everything else into perspective. Gandhi understood, for example, that when one has this kind of awe and feeling of humility before God, then fear of some human- even some powerful despotic leader who thinks he is God- is abated. One can say, “No, you are not God, you are not power, you are not majesty. You are, perhaps, more powerful than I, but God is all in all.” It is utterly essential for Gandhi’s fear of God to be the ground on which he can say ‘I shall not fear anyone on Earth.’
The deception of Left Behind Theology is that God will somehow abandon the earth, making pseudo-gods and blaspheming powers truly scary. But, as long as God is God, that is a deception that warrants this response: “Fear not!”
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Artificial Intimidation and Backmasking
I mused Monday on how evangelists often try to conjure up fear, "artificial intimidation", as a way of making their case. That seems to be the modus operandi of most LBT advocates as well. They spin these wild scenarios by blending symbolic and cryptic references in Scripture with geo-politics of our day, making tenuous connections of scary symbols with things they hate, and positive symbols with things they cherish. (You can do this also! Try having a 'doomsday party' with your friends one day and give it a whirl. Start with Dr. Seuss, then move on a Russian novelist or two, then on to the Book of Revelation! It gets easier over time.)
But, is this whole business of imposing some kind of apocalyptic meta-narrative over events of our day even necessary? It reminds me of the musician Larry Norman's reaction to the phenomenon of 'backmasking.' Remember backmasking? People would take a record and spin it backwards to hear strange satanic messages that sounded eerily like a record being played backwards. Larry Norman's response was an incredulous: Do you really have to play some of these albums backwards to find out that they have bad messages?
Likewise, I ask: Do we really have to invoke ancient symbols to convince one another that life is dangerous, that the global economic, military, energy, and social systems which shape our daily lives are only a blip or two away from falling into chaos? Did we really need some photo-shopped picture of a smoke cloud looking kind of like a devil's face to tell us that 9/11 was "evil"? And, in a world where 2/3 of its people are undernourished, where a stadium-full of children die every day of hunger and nutrient-related disease, where the wealthiest 1% have more than the poorest 25%, do we really need to wait until Israel is attacked by Gog (or Magog, or Gog and Magog- I can't keep that family straight!) before we say, "Okay, that's it, now God is starting to get mad!"?
No. We don't have to play records backward to hear bad messages and we don't have to invoke apocalyptic texts to name real and present evils or dangers among us. Life can be treacherous, human communities can be fragile, the world is filled with sin. We don't need to look "at the back of the book" to figure that out. As Reinhold Niebuhr once said, sin is the one empirically verifiable doctrine in Christian theology.
To each and all scenarios, the Scriptures give a consistent witness. And my general rule would be that, when we come across a Scripture that is difficult to understand, we should read it through the lens of the most often-repeated words of Scripture: "God's steadfast love endures forever." I find that I say that a lot, but that's because the Scriptures got me into that wonderful habit.
But, is this whole business of imposing some kind of apocalyptic meta-narrative over events of our day even necessary? It reminds me of the musician Larry Norman's reaction to the phenomenon of 'backmasking.' Remember backmasking? People would take a record and spin it backwards to hear strange satanic messages that sounded eerily like a record being played backwards. Larry Norman's response was an incredulous: Do you really have to play some of these albums backwards to find out that they have bad messages?
Likewise, I ask: Do we really have to invoke ancient symbols to convince one another that life is dangerous, that the global economic, military, energy, and social systems which shape our daily lives are only a blip or two away from falling into chaos? Did we really need some photo-shopped picture of a smoke cloud looking kind of like a devil's face to tell us that 9/11 was "evil"? And, in a world where 2/3 of its people are undernourished, where a stadium-full of children die every day of hunger and nutrient-related disease, where the wealthiest 1% have more than the poorest 25%, do we really need to wait until Israel is attacked by Gog (or Magog, or Gog and Magog- I can't keep that family straight!) before we say, "Okay, that's it, now God is starting to get mad!"?
No. We don't have to play records backward to hear bad messages and we don't have to invoke apocalyptic texts to name real and present evils or dangers among us. Life can be treacherous, human communities can be fragile, the world is filled with sin. We don't need to look "at the back of the book" to figure that out. As Reinhold Niebuhr once said, sin is the one empirically verifiable doctrine in Christian theology.
To each and all scenarios, the Scriptures give a consistent witness. And my general rule would be that, when we come across a Scripture that is difficult to understand, we should read it through the lens of the most often-repeated words of Scripture: "God's steadfast love endures forever." I find that I say that a lot, but that's because the Scriptures got me into that wonderful habit.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Artificial Intimidation and Leviathan rolling over
So, after yesterday’s blog, the question naturally arises, “Don’t the Scriptures themselves say a lot of intimidating things?” And the answer is, “Yes, of course.” Just off the top of my head, I would name the following as powerful symbols of real fears:
Primordial chaos, violence (starting with brother killing brother), vengeance (almost as evil as the originating violence), Egypt (empire built on power), war/enemies, Leviathan, “Lions, Behemoth, and Bears” (oh no!), Babylon (empire built on power), Assyria (empire built on power), Greece (empire built on power), Rome (empire built on power), Satan/the devil, demons/evil spirits, the love of money, the prince of the power of the air (say that 10x real fast!), the Great Whore of Babylon (who loses her looks after a few chapters and simply becomes a common hooker), and, of course, the Beast (her pimp).
I probably missed a few along the way, but here are my general feelings about this list of intimidating things in the Scriptures:
1. All of these references point toward the first- the primordial chaos of creation is a real and present danger, always threatening to return if the order of creation is lost.
2. Some of these references are quite literal. Lions had real teeth and Babylon had real spears and it would only be a fool who walked around ignoring the reality of either of them.
3. Some of these references were types. Egypt became a second-string player in the ancient near east after the rise of Babylon and Assyria, but it always remained a burning memory in Israel’s mind of an oppressive dynasty that is part of the grand story of liberation.
4. And some of these references are symbolic, which means they were, perhaps, the truest and most powerful references of all. Egypt will pass away as a significant player in geo-politics, but “evil spirits” are real and present dangers everywhere. They just may not be ‘real’ in the sense of ‘literal, tangible, observable’ kinds of things.
5. Most importantly and finally, each of these genuinely intimidating things is ultimately subservient to God’s power. And that’s where Leviathan is such an interesting symbol.
Leviathan is worth an afternoon of googling. It was such an extraordinary symbol of chaos and real fear in ancient times. Sometimes it seems to be an ordinary frightening creature- perhaps a crocodile- at other times, the stuff of legends, like the sea monster that eats ships lost at sea, whose real existence is verified by any number of drunken sailors. Real or not, Leviathan is a powerful symbol of real fear.
And so, in Psalm 104, a celebratory creation psalm, we hear that God made Leviathan for a distinct purpose. When the psalm speaks of the seas, it says, “There go the ships, and Leviathan that you formed to sport in it.” The image is that this fearsome creature of the deep, the loathsome threat to life as we know it, is jumping hoops when God blows a whistle, a cheap form of entertainment in God’s very own HDTV.
And that is the ultimate fate of all of these real forms intimidation: Even Leviathan/Rome/etc. are under God’s providential care.
Primordial chaos, violence (starting with brother killing brother), vengeance (almost as evil as the originating violence), Egypt (empire built on power), war/enemies, Leviathan, “Lions, Behemoth, and Bears” (oh no!), Babylon (empire built on power), Assyria (empire built on power), Greece (empire built on power), Rome (empire built on power), Satan/the devil, demons/evil spirits, the love of money, the prince of the power of the air (say that 10x real fast!), the Great Whore of Babylon (who loses her looks after a few chapters and simply becomes a common hooker), and, of course, the Beast (her pimp).
I probably missed a few along the way, but here are my general feelings about this list of intimidating things in the Scriptures:
1. All of these references point toward the first- the primordial chaos of creation is a real and present danger, always threatening to return if the order of creation is lost.
2. Some of these references are quite literal. Lions had real teeth and Babylon had real spears and it would only be a fool who walked around ignoring the reality of either of them.
3. Some of these references were types. Egypt became a second-string player in the ancient near east after the rise of Babylon and Assyria, but it always remained a burning memory in Israel’s mind of an oppressive dynasty that is part of the grand story of liberation.
4. And some of these references are symbolic, which means they were, perhaps, the truest and most powerful references of all. Egypt will pass away as a significant player in geo-politics, but “evil spirits” are real and present dangers everywhere. They just may not be ‘real’ in the sense of ‘literal, tangible, observable’ kinds of things.
5. Most importantly and finally, each of these genuinely intimidating things is ultimately subservient to God’s power. And that’s where Leviathan is such an interesting symbol.
Leviathan is worth an afternoon of googling. It was such an extraordinary symbol of chaos and real fear in ancient times. Sometimes it seems to be an ordinary frightening creature- perhaps a crocodile- at other times, the stuff of legends, like the sea monster that eats ships lost at sea, whose real existence is verified by any number of drunken sailors. Real or not, Leviathan is a powerful symbol of real fear.
And so, in Psalm 104, a celebratory creation psalm, we hear that God made Leviathan for a distinct purpose. When the psalm speaks of the seas, it says, “There go the ships, and Leviathan that you formed to sport in it.” The image is that this fearsome creature of the deep, the loathsome threat to life as we know it, is jumping hoops when God blows a whistle, a cheap form of entertainment in God’s very own HDTV.
And that is the ultimate fate of all of these real forms intimidation: Even Leviathan/Rome/etc. are under God’s providential care.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Artificial Intimidation: A Streetcar Named "Too Late!"
So, he was a preaching machine- no doubt about it. As a traveling evangelist, his role was to get people up to the altar, "get 'em good and saved," and then let Jesus and the pastor handle the rest of the details like ... overcoming addictions, breaking habits, salvaging the marriage, etc. And he was good at it.
Question: What does it take, after all, to convince someone to come to the altar?
Answer: Fear.
So, his final story went like this (with apologies for the gender bias): "Jerry was a man just like you. The Lord was tugging at his heart, saying, 'Don't wait another moment! Come and accept the new life the I'm offering you right now!' but he didn't do it. He sat there thinking that maybe one day, maybe even tomorrow, but not today. 'Not today, preacher,' he said that night, thinking he had an endless string of tomorrows. But, as he walked home from church that night, with his heart heavy and his mind lost in turmoil, he stepped right in front of a streetcar and, WHAM!, that was the end of it all for him. In the next instance he was facing eternity always regreting that he waited. He waited too late. Oh sinner, don't wait too late. Do it today..."
That was one pretty darned effective story- I remember it now many moons later! I don't recall if it resulted in anyone there getting 'saved.' After all, it was a Sunday evening service and, really, who is going to be in a Sunday evening service aside from people who are already buying into the whole idea? At best, my guess is, this story would be working on someone who, perhaps, was not quite the perfect Christian, someone who might have some flaws in the personality, or who might be the type who carries guilt around heavily, etc. A little fear can go a long way for someone who is already the nervous type.
Do you want to know what was going on in my mind at that time? It was something that consumed me for the rest of the service and I couldn't not think about it. It was the question:
What the heck is a streetcar? I mean, I never even saw one of those things for real until I visited San Francisco years later while in college. A streetcar? Is this the best this guy can do, is to give us some example from 50 years ago? And, how did he know what that unfortunate guy was thinking? Did a rescue worker hear him say in his final breath, "I was at a church and felt the Lord tugging at my heart and I did not get saved because I thought I had many tomorrows left and now I went and walked right in front of a streetcar because my heart was so heavy and ..." Geez, by the time he was done they could have operated on him three times.
To me, at the sagacious age of 8 or so, this was the stupidest story I had ever heard, totally made up, and one of the things that got me started on what literary critics call a "hermeneutic of suspicion." Okay, of course I didn't know at that time that 'hermenutics' was the theory of interpretating messages, but I was really starting to get the 'suspicion' part of that phrase. And, for the first time, I was beginning to understand that what I alway thought was "powerful preaching" was little more than conjuring up some artificial intimidation. So, that's what I'm thinking about this week. More to come...
Question: What does it take, after all, to convince someone to come to the altar?
Answer: Fear.
So, his final story went like this (with apologies for the gender bias): "Jerry was a man just like you. The Lord was tugging at his heart, saying, 'Don't wait another moment! Come and accept the new life the I'm offering you right now!' but he didn't do it. He sat there thinking that maybe one day, maybe even tomorrow, but not today. 'Not today, preacher,' he said that night, thinking he had an endless string of tomorrows. But, as he walked home from church that night, with his heart heavy and his mind lost in turmoil, he stepped right in front of a streetcar and, WHAM!, that was the end of it all for him. In the next instance he was facing eternity always regreting that he waited. He waited too late. Oh sinner, don't wait too late. Do it today..."
That was one pretty darned effective story- I remember it now many moons later! I don't recall if it resulted in anyone there getting 'saved.' After all, it was a Sunday evening service and, really, who is going to be in a Sunday evening service aside from people who are already buying into the whole idea? At best, my guess is, this story would be working on someone who, perhaps, was not quite the perfect Christian, someone who might have some flaws in the personality, or who might be the type who carries guilt around heavily, etc. A little fear can go a long way for someone who is already the nervous type.
Do you want to know what was going on in my mind at that time? It was something that consumed me for the rest of the service and I couldn't not think about it. It was the question:
What the heck is a streetcar? I mean, I never even saw one of those things for real until I visited San Francisco years later while in college. A streetcar? Is this the best this guy can do, is to give us some example from 50 years ago? And, how did he know what that unfortunate guy was thinking? Did a rescue worker hear him say in his final breath, "I was at a church and felt the Lord tugging at my heart and I did not get saved because I thought I had many tomorrows left and now I went and walked right in front of a streetcar because my heart was so heavy and ..." Geez, by the time he was done they could have operated on him three times.
To me, at the sagacious age of 8 or so, this was the stupidest story I had ever heard, totally made up, and one of the things that got me started on what literary critics call a "hermeneutic of suspicion." Okay, of course I didn't know at that time that 'hermenutics' was the theory of interpretating messages, but I was really starting to get the 'suspicion' part of that phrase. And, for the first time, I was beginning to understand that what I alway thought was "powerful preaching" was little more than conjuring up some artificial intimidation. So, that's what I'm thinking about this week. More to come...
Friday, September 19, 2008
Mail Call
Memo
Re: Class Action Suit
From: Clyde D. MacGleason, counsel at law, Locke, Stocke, and Barril, p.c.
To: God, a.k.a. The Almighty, d.b.a. Lord of All
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has come to our attention that the recent legal policy enacted by the government of the United States of America (hereafter, U.S.A.) entitled the “No Child Left Behind” act (H.R. 4206), constituted a grievous and disdainful exploitation of your own policy of rapturing saints, tormenting those who have not been raptured (to wit: “left behind”), and culminating in the destruction of the known universe in order to make room for a new and improved universe. Furthermore, since it is your own written policy (see The Gospel According to Matthew, chapter 18, verse 14) that no child should perish, that is to say, that no child should suffer the fate of being “left behind,” we hereby offer our services to you as general counsel in a class action suit representing yourself, all of the heavenly hosts, your son Jesus Christ, and the evangelist St. Matthew, as co-plaintiffs against the U.S.A. government for egregious copyright violations, pursuant to U.S.A. Copyright Code XII.A.3.d-f, as well as the rules of “fair play” adopted by the World Trade Organization (and its member states, including the U.S.A.) which strictly prohibits the U.S.A. government from naming its policy with words, concepts, images, and values (implied or explicit) that have already been put into the public eye by yourself and your own inspired correspondents.
It is our counsel that you bring charges against the U.S.A. government forthwith for besmirching your own good and loving intentions and for enacting a policy that not only fails on its own merits but drags the concept of leaving no child “Left Behind” through the mud of disdain and ill-will. Please advise at your earliest convenience whether you are ready to begin this action with us.
Yours very truly,
Clyde D. MacGleason, counsel at law
Memo: In Response to Your Offer
From: God
To: Clyde D. MacGleason, counsel at law, Locke, Stocke, and Barril, p.c.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your kind offer to represent me, my son, the heavenly hosts, and St. Matthew in pursuing claims against the U.S.A. government. I have already settled the account myself by allowing significant self-induced crashes in their housing industry, banking system, and stock market, resulting in significant loss of revenue and punitive damages. Let it be known, however, that I have not addressed this matter through the use of weather, including tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning strikes, earthquakes, tsunamis, or any of the flood and fire effects thereafter. That is not my style.
Yours truly,
God
Re: Class Action Suit
From: Clyde D. MacGleason, counsel at law, Locke, Stocke, and Barril, p.c.
To: God, a.k.a. The Almighty, d.b.a. Lord of All
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has come to our attention that the recent legal policy enacted by the government of the United States of America (hereafter, U.S.A.) entitled the “No Child Left Behind” act (H.R. 4206), constituted a grievous and disdainful exploitation of your own policy of rapturing saints, tormenting those who have not been raptured (to wit: “left behind”), and culminating in the destruction of the known universe in order to make room for a new and improved universe. Furthermore, since it is your own written policy (see The Gospel According to Matthew, chapter 18, verse 14) that no child should perish, that is to say, that no child should suffer the fate of being “left behind,” we hereby offer our services to you as general counsel in a class action suit representing yourself, all of the heavenly hosts, your son Jesus Christ, and the evangelist St. Matthew, as co-plaintiffs against the U.S.A. government for egregious copyright violations, pursuant to U.S.A. Copyright Code XII.A.3.d-f, as well as the rules of “fair play” adopted by the World Trade Organization (and its member states, including the U.S.A.) which strictly prohibits the U.S.A. government from naming its policy with words, concepts, images, and values (implied or explicit) that have already been put into the public eye by yourself and your own inspired correspondents.
It is our counsel that you bring charges against the U.S.A. government forthwith for besmirching your own good and loving intentions and for enacting a policy that not only fails on its own merits but drags the concept of leaving no child “Left Behind” through the mud of disdain and ill-will. Please advise at your earliest convenience whether you are ready to begin this action with us.
Yours very truly,
Clyde D. MacGleason, counsel at law
Memo: In Response to Your Offer
From: God
To: Clyde D. MacGleason, counsel at law, Locke, Stocke, and Barril, p.c.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your kind offer to represent me, my son, the heavenly hosts, and St. Matthew in pursuing claims against the U.S.A. government. I have already settled the account myself by allowing significant self-induced crashes in their housing industry, banking system, and stock market, resulting in significant loss of revenue and punitive damages. Let it be known, however, that I have not addressed this matter through the use of weather, including tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning strikes, earthquakes, tsunamis, or any of the flood and fire effects thereafter. That is not my style.
Yours truly,
God
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Ascension Deficit Disorder, or "I Was A Teenage Skeptic"
So, we had this traveling and beloved evangelist who came to our church for a week-long revival. Several times throughout the week, he teased us with a promise that, come Friday, he would prove to us that the Bible says the rapture of the saints will take place before the Seven Years of Tribulation. At the time, I was a teenager- I’m guessing 15 or 16. Even back in those days of my biblical fundamentalism years, I was quite skeptical of whether the rapture was really a biblical concept, even though it was one of the primary teachings of the church of my youth. So, “Finally!” I thought, “someone who seems to have a lick of sense, is going to show me how the rapture is more than just an idea cobbled together from a bunch of disparate and hard-to-understand verses that only seem to relate to one another if you really want them to.”
So, the night came and the evangelist had me all atwitter, hoping to get some sensible warrant for a doctrine that always (ALWAYS) leaves an imprint of anxiety and fear on others (“Comfort one another with these words,” my foot. “Scare the begeezers out of one another” is more like it.) And here was his proof that the rapture was going to come before the tribulation: He read Revelation 4:1 from the King James Bible:
“After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.”
And the evangelist said, “See! ‘Come up hither!’ Now, some people say that we have to stay down here on the earth and suffer through the awful things that are going to take place, but I’m going up with John at the sound of the trumpet.” And that, I’m afraid, was the ‘kith and kin’ of his entire argument. The remainder of the sermon was a thumbnail sketch of the awful events that would be plaguing the earth with the repeated refrain, “I don’t know about you, but I’m going up in the 4th chapter of the book!” And, of course, the service ended with a strong appeal for those of us who did not want to have our foreheads tattooed or to wade through rivers of blood flowing down Main Street, etc., to come to the altar and get right with God so that we, too, could go up in the 4th chapter of the book.
I didn’t go to the altar. I do not expect to go up in the 4th chapter of the book. I don’t care whether the ‘rapture’ is supposed to take place before, during, or after the seven years of tribulation. I think that whole line of reading, preaching, and indoctrination is simply wrong. And, I do not always know how to say it, but my goal is to imagine a different way of taking texts like I Thessalonians 4, Matthew 24, and the book of Revelation seriously, without taking them literally. Or, as a late friend of mine often said, “I have quit taking them literally, in order to take them seriously.”
So, the night came and the evangelist had me all atwitter, hoping to get some sensible warrant for a doctrine that always (ALWAYS) leaves an imprint of anxiety and fear on others (“Comfort one another with these words,” my foot. “Scare the begeezers out of one another” is more like it.) And here was his proof that the rapture was going to come before the tribulation: He read Revelation 4:1 from the King James Bible:
“After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.”
And the evangelist said, “See! ‘Come up hither!’ Now, some people say that we have to stay down here on the earth and suffer through the awful things that are going to take place, but I’m going up with John at the sound of the trumpet.” And that, I’m afraid, was the ‘kith and kin’ of his entire argument. The remainder of the sermon was a thumbnail sketch of the awful events that would be plaguing the earth with the repeated refrain, “I don’t know about you, but I’m going up in the 4th chapter of the book!” And, of course, the service ended with a strong appeal for those of us who did not want to have our foreheads tattooed or to wade through rivers of blood flowing down Main Street, etc., to come to the altar and get right with God so that we, too, could go up in the 4th chapter of the book.
I didn’t go to the altar. I do not expect to go up in the 4th chapter of the book. I don’t care whether the ‘rapture’ is supposed to take place before, during, or after the seven years of tribulation. I think that whole line of reading, preaching, and indoctrination is simply wrong. And, I do not always know how to say it, but my goal is to imagine a different way of taking texts like I Thessalonians 4, Matthew 24, and the book of Revelation seriously, without taking them literally. Or, as a late friend of mine often said, “I have quit taking them literally, in order to take them seriously.”
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ascension Deficit Disorder, part 3
So, yesterday we did a quick comparison of the gospels to see that Luke invests a lot of energy in telling about the event of the ascension, whereas Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ continual presence with the disciples, Mark’s passing reference to the ascension is a disputed text, and John ends his story without ever mentioning the event. Taken together, I would say that the early church did not consider the ascension to be a necessary part of telling the story of Jesus– at least as far as the gospels reflect the faith of the early church. And yet, that arresting image of Jesus rising up into the clouds seems to be what Paul is drawing on in I Thessalonians when he speaks of those Christians who are alive at Jesus’ coming (he suspected that he himself would be among them), will be “caught up in the clouds together with [the risen dead] to meet the Lord in the air.” And, of course, it is this arresting image that plays so powerfully in the scenario of Left Behind Theology.
However, I want to reiterate that Paul’s language in I Thessalonians has a very different feel to it than how that language is employed in Left Behind Theology scenarios. Paul’s language is the language of ‘participation and comfort,’ not ‘escape and threat.’ In First Thessalonians 4:13, Paul begins to address a hard question for the Thessalonica church: If we are orienting our lives for when Jesus returns any moment now, what are we to make of our fellow Christians who have died? Wouldn't it be incredibly unjust if they were to endure all of this suffering but miss out on this glorious affair? Paul’s answer indicates that the hope that we have is predicated on what Christ has done, saying, “For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died” (v.14). The point here is that our hope lies in participating in, being a part of, the great drama of the resurrection. And, twice, Paul tells the church to “encourage one another” with this hope.
Left Behind Theology gets its gas from depicting this ascension/rapture/caught-up-in-the-air event as an escape before tribulation takes place. Paul sees this ascension event as the hope that Christians can maintain- both for those who have died and for those who need to be encouraged through the trying ordeal that is already actually happening among them. In fact, reading into the second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul describes tribulation as what happens before Jesus returns, not some 'next stage' event afterwards. (But, that is not to say that this a “post-tribulation rapture” prophecy. It is a pastor speaking to a persecuted church that is dealing with the many difficult questions that arise in such a context.
Let me throw my stake down right here: Paul was simply wrong about timing, in his expectation of an immediate return of Christ. However, his primary emphasis, even within that initial, erroneous expectation of timing, was this: The power of the resurrection is something in which the church participates, enabling it to endure trials, maintain hope even for those who have died, and live with an expectation of salvation.
What Left Behind Theology does is to treat Paul’s (erroneous) expectation of an immediate return into an oracle that makes every disaster, even every looming disaster, the next great “this is the end!” moment. And that transforms the hope and participation that Paul taught into an occasion for fear and a need for an escape. And that is very, very sad.
However, I want to reiterate that Paul’s language in I Thessalonians has a very different feel to it than how that language is employed in Left Behind Theology scenarios. Paul’s language is the language of ‘participation and comfort,’ not ‘escape and threat.’ In First Thessalonians 4:13, Paul begins to address a hard question for the Thessalonica church: If we are orienting our lives for when Jesus returns any moment now, what are we to make of our fellow Christians who have died? Wouldn't it be incredibly unjust if they were to endure all of this suffering but miss out on this glorious affair? Paul’s answer indicates that the hope that we have is predicated on what Christ has done, saying, “For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died” (v.14). The point here is that our hope lies in participating in, being a part of, the great drama of the resurrection. And, twice, Paul tells the church to “encourage one another” with this hope.
Left Behind Theology gets its gas from depicting this ascension/rapture/caught-up-in-the-air event as an escape before tribulation takes place. Paul sees this ascension event as the hope that Christians can maintain- both for those who have died and for those who need to be encouraged through the trying ordeal that is already actually happening among them. In fact, reading into the second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul describes tribulation as what happens before Jesus returns, not some 'next stage' event afterwards. (But, that is not to say that this a “post-tribulation rapture” prophecy. It is a pastor speaking to a persecuted church that is dealing with the many difficult questions that arise in such a context.
Let me throw my stake down right here: Paul was simply wrong about timing, in his expectation of an immediate return of Christ. However, his primary emphasis, even within that initial, erroneous expectation of timing, was this: The power of the resurrection is something in which the church participates, enabling it to endure trials, maintain hope even for those who have died, and live with an expectation of salvation.
What Left Behind Theology does is to treat Paul’s (erroneous) expectation of an immediate return into an oracle that makes every disaster, even every looming disaster, the next great “this is the end!” moment. And that transforms the hope and participation that Paul taught into an occasion for fear and a need for an escape. And that is very, very sad.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Ascension Deficit Disorder, part 2
In yesterday’s blog entry, I told a lie. Well, it’s only a little lie, but it’s not the whole truth of the matter, that’s for sure. I was saying that the ascension of Jesus seems to be an important event and, “the gospel writers tell the story so well.” That quote right there- as generally believed as it may be- is not quite true. The gospel writers don’t really tell the story all that well. In fact, John never mentions it and Matthew ends with a very different idea altogether saying, “I am with you always, to the end of the age.” In fact, if we only had the gospels of Matthew and John, we’d get to “Ascension Sunday” on the church’s liturgical calendar and look at one another all day asking, “So, what exactly are we supposed to be celebrating today?”
But wait, we say, what about the other gospel writers? Great question. What does Mark have to say about the ascension? Well, that depends on how you read the gospel of Mark. Most of the oldest reliable manuscripts of the gospel of Mark end the last chapter with verse 8. It is not a happy ending. In fact, it is the kind of ending that is just begging for someone to come along and fix it. And, there are folks who have tried. One ending adds a closing statement to v.8 that wraps the story up nicely. Another ending adds verses 9-21, which includes v.19: “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.” I really like the idea of Jesus finally having a chance to take a load off and put his feet up for a spell, but most biblical scholars will tell you that this ending is highly doubtful as part of the original gospel of Mark. So, at best we can say that someone who amended Mark’s gospel included an ascension story, saying that Jesus “was taken up into heaven.”
And that leaves Luke. Luke, in fact, unequivocally includes the ascension story, first at the end of the Gospel of Luke (24:50-53) and then again at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles (1:9-11). The two accounts are told somewhat differently, but Luke is known for re-telling stories with slight differences (see his accounts of Saul’s conversion to Paul as examples.) I would say that, in the main, Luke’s accounts are alike and that the differences show that Luke is more concerned about being “in the moment” than being entirely accurate about every little detail of a story.
Put it all together and the ascension story fares about like the birth narrative of Jesus among the four gospels. Let’s sketch it out:
Birth Narrative
Matthew: Yes, but with Magi and not shepherds.
Mark: No.
Luke: Yes, lots of pageant-worthy details.
John: No.
Ascension Story
Matthew: No.
Mark: Not originally, but added later.
Luke: Yes, with lots of pageant-worthy details.
John: No.
So, what can we conclude from this comparison? Two things.
1. John is no fun at all.
2. If I ever have a gospel writer tell my life story, I’m calling up Luke and working the book deal to include movie rights as well.
More importantly, however, this comparison shows that there was not enormous agreement among the story-tellers in the early church over the importance of the ascension as part of Jesus’ story. For Matthew and John, either the ascension didn’t happen; or it did happen and nobody told them about it; or it did happen and somebody did tell them about it but they didn’t consider it necessary or worthy to be put into their gospel story. Hmm….
But wait, we say, what about the other gospel writers? Great question. What does Mark have to say about the ascension? Well, that depends on how you read the gospel of Mark. Most of the oldest reliable manuscripts of the gospel of Mark end the last chapter with verse 8. It is not a happy ending. In fact, it is the kind of ending that is just begging for someone to come along and fix it. And, there are folks who have tried. One ending adds a closing statement to v.8 that wraps the story up nicely. Another ending adds verses 9-21, which includes v.19: “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.” I really like the idea of Jesus finally having a chance to take a load off and put his feet up for a spell, but most biblical scholars will tell you that this ending is highly doubtful as part of the original gospel of Mark. So, at best we can say that someone who amended Mark’s gospel included an ascension story, saying that Jesus “was taken up into heaven.”
And that leaves Luke. Luke, in fact, unequivocally includes the ascension story, first at the end of the Gospel of Luke (24:50-53) and then again at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles (1:9-11). The two accounts are told somewhat differently, but Luke is known for re-telling stories with slight differences (see his accounts of Saul’s conversion to Paul as examples.) I would say that, in the main, Luke’s accounts are alike and that the differences show that Luke is more concerned about being “in the moment” than being entirely accurate about every little detail of a story.
Put it all together and the ascension story fares about like the birth narrative of Jesus among the four gospels. Let’s sketch it out:
Birth Narrative
Matthew: Yes, but with Magi and not shepherds.
Mark: No.
Luke: Yes, lots of pageant-worthy details.
John: No.
Ascension Story
Matthew: No.
Mark: Not originally, but added later.
Luke: Yes, with lots of pageant-worthy details.
John: No.
So, what can we conclude from this comparison? Two things.
1. John is no fun at all.
2. If I ever have a gospel writer tell my life story, I’m calling up Luke and working the book deal to include movie rights as well.
More importantly, however, this comparison shows that there was not enormous agreement among the story-tellers in the early church over the importance of the ascension as part of Jesus’ story. For Matthew and John, either the ascension didn’t happen; or it did happen and nobody told them about it; or it did happen and somebody did tell them about it but they didn’t consider it necessary or worthy to be put into their gospel story. Hmm….
Monday, September 15, 2008
Ascension Deficit Disorder
Having recognized the homotextual tendencies of the church last Friday, I want to spend this week diagnosing a peculiar malady that plagues the church, with hopes of finding the right prescription for our cure. I call this malady our “Ascension Deficit Disorder.”
It makes sense, of course, for us to tact toward this disorder. After all, the ascension of Jesus seems to be an important event and the gospel writers tell the story so well. Jesus bids his disciples goodbye, then begins to elevate right in front of them until, finally, a cloud receives him out of their sight. It reminds me of some helium balloons that I’ve seen go up and up to where I simply couldn’t see them any more through the clouds.
Taking off like this seems like a really cool way to leave this earth and go to God, so it’s no wonder that many Christians have felt entitled/hopeful/desirous to do the same. And, there are some scattered scriptures that seem to imply that ascending is exactly what some Christians- those who are “alive and remain”- get to do whenever Jesus returns. The writer of I Thessalonians says that when Jesus returns, the dead will rise first. “Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air.”
Like the phrase “one shall be taken, the other left” from Matthew’s gospel, this reference to being “caught up in the clouds ... to meet the Lord in the air” in I Thessalonians is a key phrase for Left Behind Theology. And while the term “rapture” is never used in the Scriptures, this verse from I Thessalonians is what LBT proponents mean by that word.
Irrelevant, but remotely interesting linguistic thingy: Not every event in the Bible comes with a pre-packaged descriptive word. Surely a phrase like “the ascension of the saints” would have been a better way of describing this text than “the rapture of the saints.” Only in LBT does the word ‘rapture’ mean something like “rising upward,” whereas that’s exactly what the word ‘ascension’ means. But, it is also worth noting that the word ‘ascension’ is also a later descriptive word that does not appear in the Bible itself.
Regardless of what word has been selected to name the upward movement described in I Thessalonians, that movement seems to be drawing on previous stories of Jesus’ own upward movement (which the church has traditionally called ‘the ascension’) and it describes how the Christians who are alive at the time of Christ’s return will have the chance to participate in that original ascension. Please keep that in mind. The language of this text does not seem to express an escape as much as a participation in the ascension of Jesus Christ.
I think this is an interpretive key that is left out of a lot of LBT scenarios and explanations. To understand what is meant by this upward movement of being caught up in the clouds with the resurrected dead to meet the Lord in the air, one must begin with the story of the Jesus’ ascension and its significance. So, setting aside all of the detailed scenarios, dreaded portents, and other such fabrications, I want to begin tomorrow with a close look at Jesus’ ascension and what it means. I think it will be somewhat surprising. I know I'm hoping to be surprised.
It makes sense, of course, for us to tact toward this disorder. After all, the ascension of Jesus seems to be an important event and the gospel writers tell the story so well. Jesus bids his disciples goodbye, then begins to elevate right in front of them until, finally, a cloud receives him out of their sight. It reminds me of some helium balloons that I’ve seen go up and up to where I simply couldn’t see them any more through the clouds.
Taking off like this seems like a really cool way to leave this earth and go to God, so it’s no wonder that many Christians have felt entitled/hopeful/desirous to do the same. And, there are some scattered scriptures that seem to imply that ascending is exactly what some Christians- those who are “alive and remain”- get to do whenever Jesus returns. The writer of I Thessalonians says that when Jesus returns, the dead will rise first. “Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air.”
Like the phrase “one shall be taken, the other left” from Matthew’s gospel, this reference to being “caught up in the clouds ... to meet the Lord in the air” in I Thessalonians is a key phrase for Left Behind Theology. And while the term “rapture” is never used in the Scriptures, this verse from I Thessalonians is what LBT proponents mean by that word.
Irrelevant, but remotely interesting linguistic thingy: Not every event in the Bible comes with a pre-packaged descriptive word. Surely a phrase like “the ascension of the saints” would have been a better way of describing this text than “the rapture of the saints.” Only in LBT does the word ‘rapture’ mean something like “rising upward,” whereas that’s exactly what the word ‘ascension’ means. But, it is also worth noting that the word ‘ascension’ is also a later descriptive word that does not appear in the Bible itself.
Regardless of what word has been selected to name the upward movement described in I Thessalonians, that movement seems to be drawing on previous stories of Jesus’ own upward movement (which the church has traditionally called ‘the ascension’) and it describes how the Christians who are alive at the time of Christ’s return will have the chance to participate in that original ascension. Please keep that in mind. The language of this text does not seem to express an escape as much as a participation in the ascension of Jesus Christ.
I think this is an interpretive key that is left out of a lot of LBT scenarios and explanations. To understand what is meant by this upward movement of being caught up in the clouds with the resurrected dead to meet the Lord in the air, one must begin with the story of the Jesus’ ascension and its significance. So, setting aside all of the detailed scenarios, dreaded portents, and other such fabrications, I want to begin tomorrow with a close look at Jesus’ ascension and what it means. I think it will be somewhat surprising. I know I'm hoping to be surprised.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Saturday Interlude: Change!?!?!
Okay, I'm changing colors. That black background was making me see negative imprints whenever I quit horsing around from the blog and started doing some real work. I hope this is easier on your eyes as well. If nothing else, it proves that Presbyterians can change on occasion.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Homotextuality and the Church
In his book, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, Richard Bernstein describes Modern Philosophy as being driven by what he calls “Cartesian anxiety.” Briefly, “Cartesian anxiety” refers to René Descartes’ drive to discover the one “indubitable principle” on which to base philosophy. Bernstein says that a lot of Modern Philosophy has been driven by a similar ‘anxiety,’ that, if we don’t have that one, solid, irrefutable principle as our foundational rock, then everything we believe is just a house of cards that will soon come crashing down.
I think many ways of reading the Bible are built on a very similar anxiety. We often feel as if everything in the Bible must be interchangeable, that all of the biblical writers saw faith in exactly the same way, and that anything suggesting otherwise might bring the whole house of cards crashing down into despair. I call this method of interpreting the Bible “Homotextuality” and I think it is harmful to the church.
Here’s how I see it happening: The radio preacher is making the case that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, all the while quoting one verse after another, first using some typology from Israel’s ancient history, then citing an 6th century B.C. prophet, then jumping to the Gospel According to Mark, then reading from a later pastoral letter, and finally concluding with some symbols taken from the book of Revelation- all of which are ripped unapologetically out of their original contexts and treated as if they were written together in one seamless thread. Or this: A “Christian Tract” piecemeals together several scriptures from Romans and calls it, “The Roman Road to Salvation,” with complete disregard to what Paul was addressing specifically in each case. Or this: A Left Behind Theologian takes a reference to a bear in Ezekiel, a whore in Revelation, and a goat with a zillion horns in Daniel, and weaves them all together in a seamless way that- amazingly- looks just like the geopolitical outlook of his favorite political party. And all of these scenarios operate out of a presumption that they are simply giving us “the Word of God.” And it works, largely because we see the Bible as homotextual (literally: “same reading”). That is, we assume that each text is saying essentially the same thing, so why not interchange them?
But, the early church did not operate out of the perspective of homotextuality. That is why the early church included, not one, but four different versions of the gospel. They did not even edit all of them into one big, fat super-gospel! They included four, with full recognition that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar but not exactly the same; and that John has a few similar stories but is largely different. Isn’t it amazing that the early church was willing to accept that there are at least four valid ways of telling Jesus’ story? And they didn’t reject the Hebrew Bible either, but fully accepted that the God who was made known through the lives and faith of the Hebrew people is the same God who is made known in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and the preaching of the church. (Google ‘Marcionism’ to see how important this was to the early church.)
What does this have to do with Left Behind Theology? Well, as I indicate above, much of Left Behind Theology gets its persuasive force by acting as though Ezekiel, Daniel, pieces of Mark, Matthew, Luke, I Thessalonians, and Revelation all have the exact same vision of the end time in view. And, while the connections between those texts may not be obvious to the casual reader- or the extremely careful reader, for that matter- Left Behind Theology asserts that all of them fit together perfectly. And we are disposed toward believing it because our homotextuality tells us that the Bible has to say one consistent thing, or else, we fear, the Bible is no more authoritative than any other collection of writings.
My suggestion is that we follow the example of the early church and avoid homotextuality by letting each biblical writer have his/her own voice. In fact, that should not be a principle of interpretation as much as it should be something that provokes our awe: God’s ways, God’s love, God’s grace, and God’s self are so indescribably wide and deep that it takes a choir of different voices- gloriously different!- to sing God’s praise!
I think many ways of reading the Bible are built on a very similar anxiety. We often feel as if everything in the Bible must be interchangeable, that all of the biblical writers saw faith in exactly the same way, and that anything suggesting otherwise might bring the whole house of cards crashing down into despair. I call this method of interpreting the Bible “Homotextuality” and I think it is harmful to the church.
Here’s how I see it happening: The radio preacher is making the case that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, all the while quoting one verse after another, first using some typology from Israel’s ancient history, then citing an 6th century B.C. prophet, then jumping to the Gospel According to Mark, then reading from a later pastoral letter, and finally concluding with some symbols taken from the book of Revelation- all of which are ripped unapologetically out of their original contexts and treated as if they were written together in one seamless thread. Or this: A “Christian Tract” piecemeals together several scriptures from Romans and calls it, “The Roman Road to Salvation,” with complete disregard to what Paul was addressing specifically in each case. Or this: A Left Behind Theologian takes a reference to a bear in Ezekiel, a whore in Revelation, and a goat with a zillion horns in Daniel, and weaves them all together in a seamless way that- amazingly- looks just like the geopolitical outlook of his favorite political party. And all of these scenarios operate out of a presumption that they are simply giving us “the Word of God.” And it works, largely because we see the Bible as homotextual (literally: “same reading”). That is, we assume that each text is saying essentially the same thing, so why not interchange them?
But, the early church did not operate out of the perspective of homotextuality. That is why the early church included, not one, but four different versions of the gospel. They did not even edit all of them into one big, fat super-gospel! They included four, with full recognition that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar but not exactly the same; and that John has a few similar stories but is largely different. Isn’t it amazing that the early church was willing to accept that there are at least four valid ways of telling Jesus’ story? And they didn’t reject the Hebrew Bible either, but fully accepted that the God who was made known through the lives and faith of the Hebrew people is the same God who is made known in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and the preaching of the church. (Google ‘Marcionism’ to see how important this was to the early church.)
What does this have to do with Left Behind Theology? Well, as I indicate above, much of Left Behind Theology gets its persuasive force by acting as though Ezekiel, Daniel, pieces of Mark, Matthew, Luke, I Thessalonians, and Revelation all have the exact same vision of the end time in view. And, while the connections between those texts may not be obvious to the casual reader- or the extremely careful reader, for that matter- Left Behind Theology asserts that all of them fit together perfectly. And we are disposed toward believing it because our homotextuality tells us that the Bible has to say one consistent thing, or else, we fear, the Bible is no more authoritative than any other collection of writings.
My suggestion is that we follow the example of the early church and avoid homotextuality by letting each biblical writer have his/her own voice. In fact, that should not be a principle of interpretation as much as it should be something that provokes our awe: God’s ways, God’s love, God’s grace, and God’s self are so indescribably wide and deep that it takes a choir of different voices- gloriously different!- to sing God’s praise!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Remember; Then Remember Remembering
I'm spending the morning remembering how we remembered 9/11. Since the word 'member' originally refers to body parts (think: dis-member), to 're-member' is to re-attach that which has been severed.
When tragedy strikes, one of our most enduring tendencies is to remember. That sounds kind of odd, given that tragedy has a way of forcing us to be "in the moment" even if that means being stunned and wondering what just happened. But, as soon as we are able to wrap our minds around an event- or to try anyway- we begin to remember, to try to re-connect our moment with our history and identity.
When 9/11 happened, the initial shock was indescribable. When we began to grope for language to re-member, one piece of our history that seemed to be as appropriate as any was the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was not a perfect memory, by any stretch. 9/11 certainly was not carried out by the Japanese government; it was not even an act of war by a recognized state; the twin towers were not military installations of strategic value; and so forth. But, the bombing of Pearl Harbor seemed appropriate because it seemed to capture the same kind of shock and horror that many people felt in the aftermath of 9/11. (This could explain why people often use the word 'bombing' when referring to 9/11. We don't correct them because what they are saying is usually more important than getting the exact language correct.) When it comes to the initial feelings, Pearl Harbor seemed to be the right memory to help us express and begin to comprehend what had just happened.
Or, at least, we think the feelings were the same. After all, there were 60 years between those events. Someone like me- pushing 50- has no real memory of Pearl Harbor; I only remember hearing others remember it. That, too, is a way that collective memory works- we tell stories and invite others into the memory, even those who were born well after the event itself. So, when someone my age would say, "This is just like Pearl Harbor," then, technically, one could argue the point in many ways. But, again, there is a time to be disputational about details and there is a time to listen sympathetically to grief (a lesson that Bill Maher had to learn the hard way.)
So, why and I remembering our remembering this morning? One reason is because I want to invite you to think of the ancient Hebrews and the New Testament church as communities that remembered, and often that remembered remembering. Here's one over-simplified example that figures prominently in texts that we often assume (or are pointedly told) are about the end time.
One of the severest disruptions in Israel's history was the utter conquest of Israel by Babylon and the deportation into captivity that followed. While the main cities lay wasted, the Babylonians took many of the best and Israel's brightest (of the survivors, that is) into slavery in Babylon. That is how ancient empires grew, established themselves, and ensured that defeated peoples remained defeated. The first six chapters of Daniel tell stories about a very heroic and faithful man named Daniel, who maintained his faith and courageously stood against becoming 'babylonianized' during this awful time. And, when tossed among hungry lions, God protected Daniel, Daniel remained faithful, and even the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar had to profess that the God of Israel was greater than the Babylonian gods. That was a huge concession at a time when Israel's loss on the battlefield led most people to assume the opposite.
Hundreds of years later (around 2 BC), when a general of the Greek army, Antiochus Epiphanies, once again routed the capital city of Jerusalem and, to everyone's shock!, desecrated the temple by slaughtering a pig in the 'holy of holies' place on the altar, Israel was again waylaid by indescribable horror. And one way that they re-connected to their history and identity was by re-membering Daniel. The last six chapters of Daniel seem to have been written during this time. Not by Daniel, of course, but in Daniel's name, a way of saying, "Here is what Daniel says to us about how to maintain faith during this time of apocalyptic horror!" They were re-membering, re-connecting with their history, their identity, and their God, by naming their current crisis as a time of following Daniel.
One thing "Daniel" told his suffering people was that, just when it seems that calamity is at it worst, they should live in expectation that God would save them. "Then you shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds" was the phrase that "Daniel" would use, and other after him would repeat.
When the Gospel of Mark was written, it, too, was during a time of astounding calamity. The rebuilt and seemingly impenetrable temple was being utterly destroyed by the Romans! Jerusalem was being destroyed and the people were facing the real question of whether to stand up and fight a lost cause or to flee to the hills. But, to flee, seemed to be a concession of a lack of faith in God, wouldn't it?
Then Mark remembers Jesus remembering 2 BC Israelites remembering Daniel, when Jesus says, 'run to the hills and look up in expectation for the Son of Man coming in the clouds!' The intention is to ensure hope and faithfulness even in these dark times, to expect that God will give aid, that the same God who was faithful to Israel during its darkest days of deportation and of the destruction of the second temple, will continue to be faithful even during the destruction of Jerusalem around 70 AD.
What is most important during times of crisis is not predictive prophecy. Nor is it exact correspondence between one event and another. It is remembering, re-connecting with our history and identity where God's steadfast love endures forever. And that is true even today as we remember 9/11 and look for appropriate ways to remember it well.
When tragedy strikes, one of our most enduring tendencies is to remember. That sounds kind of odd, given that tragedy has a way of forcing us to be "in the moment" even if that means being stunned and wondering what just happened. But, as soon as we are able to wrap our minds around an event- or to try anyway- we begin to remember, to try to re-connect our moment with our history and identity.
When 9/11 happened, the initial shock was indescribable. When we began to grope for language to re-member, one piece of our history that seemed to be as appropriate as any was the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was not a perfect memory, by any stretch. 9/11 certainly was not carried out by the Japanese government; it was not even an act of war by a recognized state; the twin towers were not military installations of strategic value; and so forth. But, the bombing of Pearl Harbor seemed appropriate because it seemed to capture the same kind of shock and horror that many people felt in the aftermath of 9/11. (This could explain why people often use the word 'bombing' when referring to 9/11. We don't correct them because what they are saying is usually more important than getting the exact language correct.) When it comes to the initial feelings, Pearl Harbor seemed to be the right memory to help us express and begin to comprehend what had just happened.
Or, at least, we think the feelings were the same. After all, there were 60 years between those events. Someone like me- pushing 50- has no real memory of Pearl Harbor; I only remember hearing others remember it. That, too, is a way that collective memory works- we tell stories and invite others into the memory, even those who were born well after the event itself. So, when someone my age would say, "This is just like Pearl Harbor," then, technically, one could argue the point in many ways. But, again, there is a time to be disputational about details and there is a time to listen sympathetically to grief (a lesson that Bill Maher had to learn the hard way.)
So, why and I remembering our remembering this morning? One reason is because I want to invite you to think of the ancient Hebrews and the New Testament church as communities that remembered, and often that remembered remembering. Here's one over-simplified example that figures prominently in texts that we often assume (or are pointedly told) are about the end time.
One of the severest disruptions in Israel's history was the utter conquest of Israel by Babylon and the deportation into captivity that followed. While the main cities lay wasted, the Babylonians took many of the best and Israel's brightest (of the survivors, that is) into slavery in Babylon. That is how ancient empires grew, established themselves, and ensured that defeated peoples remained defeated. The first six chapters of Daniel tell stories about a very heroic and faithful man named Daniel, who maintained his faith and courageously stood against becoming 'babylonianized' during this awful time. And, when tossed among hungry lions, God protected Daniel, Daniel remained faithful, and even the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar had to profess that the God of Israel was greater than the Babylonian gods. That was a huge concession at a time when Israel's loss on the battlefield led most people to assume the opposite.
Hundreds of years later (around 2 BC), when a general of the Greek army, Antiochus Epiphanies, once again routed the capital city of Jerusalem and, to everyone's shock!, desecrated the temple by slaughtering a pig in the 'holy of holies' place on the altar, Israel was again waylaid by indescribable horror. And one way that they re-connected to their history and identity was by re-membering Daniel. The last six chapters of Daniel seem to have been written during this time. Not by Daniel, of course, but in Daniel's name, a way of saying, "Here is what Daniel says to us about how to maintain faith during this time of apocalyptic horror!" They were re-membering, re-connecting with their history, their identity, and their God, by naming their current crisis as a time of following Daniel.
One thing "Daniel" told his suffering people was that, just when it seems that calamity is at it worst, they should live in expectation that God would save them. "Then you shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds" was the phrase that "Daniel" would use, and other after him would repeat.
When the Gospel of Mark was written, it, too, was during a time of astounding calamity. The rebuilt and seemingly impenetrable temple was being utterly destroyed by the Romans! Jerusalem was being destroyed and the people were facing the real question of whether to stand up and fight a lost cause or to flee to the hills. But, to flee, seemed to be a concession of a lack of faith in God, wouldn't it?
Then Mark remembers Jesus remembering 2 BC Israelites remembering Daniel, when Jesus says, 'run to the hills and look up in expectation for the Son of Man coming in the clouds!' The intention is to ensure hope and faithfulness even in these dark times, to expect that God will give aid, that the same God who was faithful to Israel during its darkest days of deportation and of the destruction of the second temple, will continue to be faithful even during the destruction of Jerusalem around 70 AD.
What is most important during times of crisis is not predictive prophecy. Nor is it exact correspondence between one event and another. It is remembering, re-connecting with our history and identity where God's steadfast love endures forever. And that is true even today as we remember 9/11 and look for appropriate ways to remember it well.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Left Behind: A Good Thing or a Bad Thing?
One of the Scripture texts that gives stark language and emotional power to Left Behind Theology, is Matthew 24:36-42. In these few verses, we get the imagery of Noah's flood and the language of being "swept away," as well as the poignant examples of two people in the field or grinding at the mill, when "one will be taken and one will be left." In particular, these words, "one will be left" are the roots of the catchphrase "left behind." So, let's look at this passage of Matthew's gospel for a moment, since that seems to be a key originating text of this whole apparatus of Left Behind Theology. (For the best effect of reading this text, one should lay it side-by-side with Mark 13:32-37 and Luke 17:22-37 and see both the similarities and differences between them. For now, we'll just look at Matthew.)
Jesus says:
But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.
Wow. As a young person, the mental image in my head when reading or hearing this passage was that the age of Noah was a wild and hedonistic age, when suddenly God sent the flood and annihilated most of them, who, up to the last minute when it was too late, were blissfully ignorant of the cosmic drama happening around them. And, it seemed that Jesus was saying that when he comes to take away his faithful, the worker grinding at the mill will likewise be ignorant of what has happened when she turns around and says, "Now, where did that other mill worker go all of a sudden?"
The field worker and the mill worker who are 'left behind,' become the airplane passengers- whose pilot is suddenly "raptured" and whose plane is suddenly spiralling toward a major city- in all of the modern Left Behind Theology scenarios.
But wait! Something is awry in this reading, a "sleight of hand," as it were, that turns this text on its head. If- as Jesus says- it is like "the days of Noah", then we need to ask, Who gets 'swept away' and who gets 'left behind' in the Noah story? And the answer is, all of those partying, blissfully ignorant people get 'swept away,' and it is Noah and his family who are 'left behind' by surviving the flood in an ark, rescuing animals of all spiecies, and participating in the work of rebuilding life and community after the disaster. In that story, Noah is 'left behind' because God wants to redeem and rebuild the circle of life.
Here is the equation for all of you math types:
Noah: ready, left behind = Faithful who are watching and ready today
Ignorant partyers: not ready = Ignorant partyers not ready today
So, when Jesus says, "For as the days of Noah were ..." maybe his point is that those who trust in the God whose steadfast love endures forever, are those who will be watching and ready to be part of God's great rebuilding, God's faithfulness to the whole of creation, even after calamities and catastrophe.
At least in this particular Scripture- the one that gives us such powerful imagery and language- being "Left Behind" is the right thing, not the dreaded wrong thing.
I'd love to hear your reaction to this!
Jesus says:
But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.
Wow. As a young person, the mental image in my head when reading or hearing this passage was that the age of Noah was a wild and hedonistic age, when suddenly God sent the flood and annihilated most of them, who, up to the last minute when it was too late, were blissfully ignorant of the cosmic drama happening around them. And, it seemed that Jesus was saying that when he comes to take away his faithful, the worker grinding at the mill will likewise be ignorant of what has happened when she turns around and says, "Now, where did that other mill worker go all of a sudden?"
The field worker and the mill worker who are 'left behind,' become the airplane passengers- whose pilot is suddenly "raptured" and whose plane is suddenly spiralling toward a major city- in all of the modern Left Behind Theology scenarios.
But wait! Something is awry in this reading, a "sleight of hand," as it were, that turns this text on its head. If- as Jesus says- it is like "the days of Noah", then we need to ask, Who gets 'swept away' and who gets 'left behind' in the Noah story? And the answer is, all of those partying, blissfully ignorant people get 'swept away,' and it is Noah and his family who are 'left behind' by surviving the flood in an ark, rescuing animals of all spiecies, and participating in the work of rebuilding life and community after the disaster. In that story, Noah is 'left behind' because God wants to redeem and rebuild the circle of life.
Here is the equation for all of you math types:
Noah: ready, left behind = Faithful who are watching and ready today
Ignorant partyers: not ready = Ignorant partyers not ready today
So, when Jesus says, "For as the days of Noah were ..." maybe his point is that those who trust in the God whose steadfast love endures forever, are those who will be watching and ready to be part of God's great rebuilding, God's faithfulness to the whole of creation, even after calamities and catastrophe.
At least in this particular Scripture- the one that gives us such powerful imagery and language- being "Left Behind" is the right thing, not the dreaded wrong thing.
I'd love to hear your reaction to this!
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Elaine, Look to the Cookie!
A few years ago, the Center for Science in the Public Interest ran an article in their Nutrition Action Newsletter about the nutrional value of ... Girl Scout cookies. They covered the cookies rather thoroughly, exploring the fat, transfats, sodium, and everything else found in cookies ranging from Thin Mints to those delicious Peanut Butter Tagalongs. The CSPI does this kind of research on popular foods with every issue of the N.A. Newsletter, so they weren't 'singling out' Girl Scouts per se, they just were focusing on the cookies this time around.
Still, the results were a little disconcerting-- especially if you are one of those who can't resist the sales pitch of sweet little neighbor children, offering a smile and handing you a ledger sheet to fill in, while their moms waving joyfully from the sidewalk. I know that I'm the kind of person who can refuse junk food and sweets at the grocery store, but once the food in our house, I'm going to eat it. Girl Scouts selling cookies take away my wall of resistance. And the CSPI showed me why that was not such a good thing. (NOTE: I seem to recall that GS cookies have improved their nutritional content over time, so please don't read this as the last word on the subject.)
What was interesting-- and even more disconcerting-- was the reaction from the public over the N.A. Newsletter's research. Letters to the journal accused the CSPI of picking on sweet and innocent little girls, who were just trying to support their participation Girl Scouts, by depicting them as merchants of death. Other letters were not quite that diplomatic. Importantly, very few of the letters actually addressed the science of the report- whether or not the cookies actually did contain the nutrional contents that the CSPI said they did. Instead, they focused on how the report would reflect on the image of a cherished and admirable institution.
I think there is a lot to learn from the public reaction to the CSPI report. There are times that we react strongly to something, not because we agree or disagree with the truth of the matter, but because we are trying to protect an image that we cherish. So, for example, people who don't understand the first thing about the science of carbon dating might reject it in principle, not because they can disprove it, but because the notion that the earth might be billions of years old does not fit within their cherished image of creation.
I think the same might be true with people's devotion to Left Behind Theology. If anyone has ever read Barbara Rossing's book, The Rapture Exposed, or Bruce Metzger's Breaking the Code, they would encounter very strong and reasonable arguments against the biblical and theological premises of Left Behind Theology. The 'science' against it, so to speak, is there. Left Behind Theology is simply bad theology built on flimsy scriptural foundations. And yet, so many people assume it is the Christian perspective of the end times. Why is that?
As Jerry Seinfeld once famously said, "Elaine, Look to the cookie!"*
I think the reason that Tim LaHaye's books (those curious hybrids of fiction and supposed non-fiction) outsell Barbara Rossing's books by such a huge margin, has nothing to do with the cogency of their arguments and biblical interpretations. We cherish the idea that, if the world goes awry, we get to survive- much like the letter writers to the CSPI cherished the image of Girl Scouts. And if we have to ignore the facts in order to protect the image, so be it.
* Jerry's cookie was half vanilla and half chocolate, a happy ebony-and-ivory co-existence that led him to sermonize a bit on human community. Shortly thereafter he got an upset stomach, saying, "I think it was the cookie."
Monday, September 8, 2008
Separated at Birth?
Okay, Jesus and Wyatt Earp (as played by Kirk Russell) were born almost 2,000 years apart, but bear with me for a minute as we explore the possibility that Wyatt is actually Jesus’ evil twin.
Jesus’ teachings were marked by some rather profound views toward violence: “You have heard it was said, ‘An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other also.” And this: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” And, of course, Jesus’ suffering and death were embodiments of this same ethic, as he hung on the cross and asked God to forgive his murderers.
Wyatt Earp (as played by Kirk Russell) was a bit of a different character. In the movie “Tombstone,” there is that climatic moment when Wyatt is being ushered out of town with his tail between his legs in what looks like an embarrassing defeat. But we know that the winds are starting to change when Wyatt takes out one of his chaperones and sends the other running off weaponless with the words, “You tell them I’m coming … and hell’s coming with me!”
“Love your enemy”/“Hell’s coming with me!” Wow, those ways of viewing things don’t look anything alike. But, according to much of “Left Behind Theology,” the second of these phrases is how you can expect to see Jesus when he comes back. Apparently, all of the “love your enemy” crap was part of Jesus’ first coming, a failed attempt to save the world nicely. But, the Jesus’ second coming will be different. As a friend of mine (a Presbyterian ministry, for crying out loud) once said, “Well, the first time Jesus came it was like a lamb. The second time he comes it will be like a lion.” So, the lamb is now a lion, the piteous spectacle on the cross has been replaced with a fearsome rider of the white horse, and- as it turns out- Hollywood justice has been right all along: All of that feigned humility of Jesus was just a way of setting up the absolute justice of the violence that he is bringing when he returns.
Well … I think there is something seriously wrong with this picture. I’ll say more at another time about Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21, as well as that compilation of shock and awe called the book of Revelation. But, for now, I simply suggest that we read Jesus’ second coming through his first coming. The Jesus of Left Behind Theology is not the Jesus we know, the Word made flesh, who lived among us. Apparently, it is his evil twin, Wyatt Earp (as played by Kirk Russell). Now, that’s a real man’s messiah!
Friday, September 5, 2008
Rapture: The Rupture of a Covenant
I was 14 and had been out skipping church one Sunday evening when I came home to an empty house. Ordinarily that was not a big deal, but my parents- who had been at church that evening- were typically 'early to bed, early to rise' sort of people. Ten o'clock and no parents? What could have been the explanation?
For me, it was simple. The rapture had come, my parents had been taken away from this world of woe, and I was 'left behind' to suffer horribly for the next seven years. That's the way God is, I thought as I panicked: The one night in years that I had skipped church (under false pretenses, so my parents were innocent of that crime) and actually succumbed to the temptation to smoke a cigarette- that was when God decided it was time to pull the switch and change the world.
There's more to that story, but you get the point. At the time it did not even occur to me how self-centered I was to imagine that the fate of the world rested on me; or that God was timing a cosmic event just to catch me screwing up. Bad anthropology; bad cosmology; awful theology. But that's what happens after listening in earnest to so many sermonic appeals to personal salvation- at least for my soul's sake, the point was for me to get saved and to hell with the rest of the world.
And there's the rub. The whole doctrine of the rapture- a fairly new thing in the scheme of Christianity- is based on the premise that some are saved and to hell with the rest of the world. But, is God a God who says "to hell with the rest of the world?" Even the Noah story, where God seems quite willing to destroy the rest of the world, ends with God making a covenant with Noah, that never again will God destroy the earth in that fashion. The God at the end of this story is a grieving God, for whom saving a few people and animals is not enough. "Never again," God says, "Never again."
The whole idea of a rapture- where you and I get to take leave of this piece of dirt called "earth" while billions of others are left behind to suffer and see it destroyed- is simply wrong. It is a rupture of the covenant, a primary, constitutive way of understanding God's relationship toward us.
Thanks for reading ... I'll be back at it on Monday.
For me, it was simple. The rapture had come, my parents had been taken away from this world of woe, and I was 'left behind' to suffer horribly for the next seven years. That's the way God is, I thought as I panicked: The one night in years that I had skipped church (under false pretenses, so my parents were innocent of that crime) and actually succumbed to the temptation to smoke a cigarette- that was when God decided it was time to pull the switch and change the world.
There's more to that story, but you get the point. At the time it did not even occur to me how self-centered I was to imagine that the fate of the world rested on me; or that God was timing a cosmic event just to catch me screwing up. Bad anthropology; bad cosmology; awful theology. But that's what happens after listening in earnest to so many sermonic appeals to personal salvation- at least for my soul's sake, the point was for me to get saved and to hell with the rest of the world.
And there's the rub. The whole doctrine of the rapture- a fairly new thing in the scheme of Christianity- is based on the premise that some are saved and to hell with the rest of the world. But, is God a God who says "to hell with the rest of the world?" Even the Noah story, where God seems quite willing to destroy the rest of the world, ends with God making a covenant with Noah, that never again will God destroy the earth in that fashion. The God at the end of this story is a grieving God, for whom saving a few people and animals is not enough. "Never again," God says, "Never again."
The whole idea of a rapture- where you and I get to take leave of this piece of dirt called "earth" while billions of others are left behind to suffer and see it destroyed- is simply wrong. It is a rupture of the covenant, a primary, constitutive way of understanding God's relationship toward us.
Thanks for reading ... I'll be back at it on Monday.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Day 1: One week until a week of years
In one week, it will be 9/11 all over again- calendrically speaking. This particular September 11, will bring us to seven years after the horrific events in NYC, the Pentagon building, and PA, when terrorists commandeered commercial airplanes and used them with their passengers as weapons of mass destruction.
Seven years. Although much has been done- for good or for ill- in the name of 9/11, I cannot see this day approaching without remembering the shock. So, the first and most appropriate word to share is a prayer:
God of life, God of love, God of grace, God of peace:
Everything that you are was violated enormously on that fateful day seven years ago.
Grant peace to families that are still grieving. Grant hope to those whose nightmares won't go away. Grant us all greater understanding, greater forebearance, and greater love for one another. Amen.
It is hard for me to leave off my reflections today without mentioning the number 7 and the role that it plays in both biblical texts and in the imaginations of those who interpret or misinterpret those texts. Seven is no magic number, but it is a significant number in the Scriptures. Not only does the first creation story culminate with the establishment of the Sabbath on the seventh day, but number seven is used repeatedly to signify God's gift of the Sabbath (think: rest, restitution, restoration) to humanity.
Many modern biblical interpreters, however, have traded the significance of the number 7 for a magical view of the number, as if it were a secret sign understood only by these insightful prognosticians. In fact, they are merely using this number to capitalize on fear. That is why the Seven Years of Tribulation and the "666" (a close-call knock-off of the good number "777") are such hair-raising words to many of us.
Some of these folk, as one might imagine, have declared 9/11 to be the "beginning of the end," and this is where today's date becomes intriguing. If they are correct in their Tribulation Time Table, then we are one week (7 DAYS!) away from the end of the Tribulation. I suppose that also means that the rapture took place on 9/11.
Hmm... all this time I've been enjoying the smiles of my children, the love of my friends and family, the sun, the Cubs, and all kinds of things both fleeting and long-lasting. Left Behind, and loving it. Cool.
Seven years. Although much has been done- for good or for ill- in the name of 9/11, I cannot see this day approaching without remembering the shock. So, the first and most appropriate word to share is a prayer:
God of life, God of love, God of grace, God of peace:
Everything that you are was violated enormously on that fateful day seven years ago.
Grant peace to families that are still grieving. Grant hope to those whose nightmares won't go away. Grant us all greater understanding, greater forebearance, and greater love for one another. Amen.
It is hard for me to leave off my reflections today without mentioning the number 7 and the role that it plays in both biblical texts and in the imaginations of those who interpret or misinterpret those texts. Seven is no magic number, but it is a significant number in the Scriptures. Not only does the first creation story culminate with the establishment of the Sabbath on the seventh day, but number seven is used repeatedly to signify God's gift of the Sabbath (think: rest, restitution, restoration) to humanity.
Many modern biblical interpreters, however, have traded the significance of the number 7 for a magical view of the number, as if it were a secret sign understood only by these insightful prognosticians. In fact, they are merely using this number to capitalize on fear. That is why the Seven Years of Tribulation and the "666" (a close-call knock-off of the good number "777") are such hair-raising words to many of us.
Some of these folk, as one might imagine, have declared 9/11 to be the "beginning of the end," and this is where today's date becomes intriguing. If they are correct in their Tribulation Time Table, then we are one week (7 DAYS!) away from the end of the Tribulation. I suppose that also means that the rapture took place on 9/11.
Hmm... all this time I've been enjoying the smiles of my children, the love of my friends and family, the sun, the Cubs, and all kinds of things both fleeting and long-lasting. Left Behind, and loving it. Cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
